Palefaces: Redskins' Name OK
- Thread starter Marbleheader
- Start date
- Status
From that article:
"When I told him that various groups representing Inuits and Aleuts in Alaska question the description of him as a "full-blooded Inuit Chief originally of Aleutian tribes," Dodson said, "I don't get into organizational things like that. We are a people and that's what we need to focus on, instead of dealing with non-profits run by Mexicans."
"When I told him that various groups representing Inuits and Aleuts in Alaska question the description of him as a "full-blooded Inuit Chief originally of Aleutian tribes," Dodson said, "I don't get into organizational things like that. We are a people and that's what we need to focus on, instead of dealing with non-profits run by Mexicans."
I don't even understand how you can liken redskins (which we should perhaps start using the r word?) to the n word as a JUSTIFICATION to use it boggles my mind.
The n word is completely and totally unacceptable but suggesting its a similar usage amongst native Americans as n word for African Americans (even if that were true) would seem to only serve to highlight how inappropriate it is.
The n word is completely and totally unacceptable but suggesting its a similar usage amongst native Americans as n word for African Americans (even if that were true) would seem to only serve to highlight how inappropriate it is.
Article in today's NY Times re the subject
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/sports/football/risk-for-redskins-in-makeover-of-team-mascot.html?ref=sports&_r=0
The last line, (bolded) while off-topic is pretty funny.
“A drop in the bucket,” said Gabe Feldman, the director of the sports law program at Tulane University. Consider that the N.F.L.’s salary cap for the coming season is $123 million.
Ultimately, the financial stakes would have more to do with the psychology of the sports fan than with the costs of printing new business cards. John Maroon, a former spokesman for the Redskins who runs a public-relations firm based in Maryland, said any sort of move would be bad for business.
Maroon cited a recent poll conducted by The Associated Press in which 79 percent of those surveyed said they favored the team’s keeping its name, with 11 percent opposed. Rebranding the franchise, Maroon said, would be “hugely unpopular” and wind up costing the team “tens of millions of dollars.”
At the same time, Maroon said, it would be difficult for fans to stay away, even if they were initially annoyed. Football, he said, has a strong emotional hold over fans. Are Redskins fans really so attached to a nickname that they would refuse to watch them play as the Congressionals or the Red Pandas?
Maroon said he rooted for the Jets.
“If they changed their name or banned Joe Namath from the stadium, I’d be upset,” he said. “But I’d still wind up wearing my Jets stuff, and then Sunday would come and I’d go to the game and watch them lose in another color.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/sports/football/risk-for-redskins-in-makeover-of-team-mascot.html?ref=sports&_r=0
The last line, (bolded) while off-topic is pretty funny.
So even if the franchise were to spend $10 million or $20 million to drop its nickname and rebrand itself, how much is that really?
“A drop in the bucket,” said Gabe Feldman, the director of the sports law program at Tulane University. Consider that the N.F.L.’s salary cap for the coming season is $123 million.
Ultimately, the financial stakes would have more to do with the psychology of the sports fan than with the costs of printing new business cards. John Maroon, a former spokesman for the Redskins who runs a public-relations firm based in Maryland, said any sort of move would be bad for business.
Maroon cited a recent poll conducted by The Associated Press in which 79 percent of those surveyed said they favored the team’s keeping its name, with 11 percent opposed. Rebranding the franchise, Maroon said, would be “hugely unpopular” and wind up costing the team “tens of millions of dollars.”
At the same time, Maroon said, it would be difficult for fans to stay away, even if they were initially annoyed. Football, he said, has a strong emotional hold over fans. Are Redskins fans really so attached to a nickname that they would refuse to watch them play as the Congressionals or the Red Pandas?
Maroon said he rooted for the Jets.
“If they changed their name or banned Joe Namath from the stadium, I’d be upset,” he said. “But I’d still wind up wearing my Jets stuff, and then Sunday would come and I’d go to the game and watch them lose in another color.”
They could switch to Red Berries.
The sponsorship payment from Kellogg's would cover any (dubious) merchandising $ shortfall.
The sponsorship payment from Kellogg's would cover any (dubious) merchandising $ shortfall.
I still find it interesting that we can't even write the word, even to refer to existence of the wordLondonSox said:
Amazing how much weight that has.
I agree, I think over time it may get more acceptable but it sure isn't there yet.
The r word seems pretty damn similar yet excepted because the native American (can we stop calling them Indians btw this was due to a fucking mistake hundreds of years ago. Seems amazing that this mistake endures) culture is much smaller and much more screwed. It doesn't make it any more acceptable, less in fact if anything. The race is question is seeing little improvement and no one even cares if you refer to them with racial slurs
The r word seems pretty damn similar yet excepted because the native American (can we stop calling them Indians btw this was due to a fucking mistake hundreds of years ago. Seems amazing that this mistake endures) culture is much smaller and much more screwed. It doesn't make it any more acceptable, less in fact if anything. The race is question is seeing little improvement and no one even cares if you refer to them with racial slurs
I don't even understand how you can liken redskins (which we should perhaps start using the r word?) to the n word as a JUSTIFICATION to use it boggles my mind.
The n word is completely and totally unacceptable but suggesting its a similar usage amongst native Americans as n word for African Americans (even if that were true) would seem to only serve to highlight how inappropriate it is.
I still find it interesting that we can't even write the word, even to refer to existence of the word
Amazing how much weight that has.
It honestly bugs me in a pet peeve kind of way. There shouldn't be words you can't say in an academic context. If Eric had written the full word out in his above post, I don't see a need to take offense. It couldn't be plainer that he's talking about the word itself and not directing it at someone or using it as a description.
The n word is completely and totally unacceptable but suggesting its a similar usage amongst native Americans as n word for African Americans (even if that were true) would seem to only serve to highlight how inappropriate it is.
I still find it interesting that we can't even write the word, even to refer to existence of the word
Amazing how much weight that has.
It honestly bugs me in a pet peeve kind of way. There shouldn't be words you can't say in an academic context. If Eric had written the full word out in his above post, I don't see a need to take offense. It couldn't be plainer that he's talking about the word itself and not directing it at someone or using it as a description.
dirtynine said:
Dick Pole Upside said:
And yet, the term "Amerind" seems to be used pretty often in academic contexts, when discussing languages and sometimes ethnicitites of Native Americans.
I am not at all sure how people in general, or Native Americans, feel about that term.
Dick Pole Upside said:
Come on.
• National Museum of the American Indian
• National Congress of American Indians
• American Indian Movement
etc.
(can we stop calling them Indians btw this was due to a fucking mistake hundreds of years ago. Seems amazing that this mistake endures)
I don't think you'd hear it in the U.S. except amongst groups using it intentionally and almost universally pejoratively. It's a pretty good leading indicator for the beliefs of whoever's using the term.
That's not true at all. Or it is, but not i. The way you think. The vast majority of Sioux tribe members (among others) say "Indian" because they feel that the change to NA is just one more way that white Americans are trying to dictate the conversation regarding that part of history, and in such a way that they can feel better about themselves without actually doing anything.
In other words, the thought process (As I've been told) is: "No, fuck you, you called us Indians for hundreds of years. We learned to accept it and use that term. Now YOU want to star using some other term to make yourself feel better about treating us like shit. No. Tough shit. Too late."
I don't think you'd hear it in the U.S. except amongst groups using it intentionally and almost universally pejoratively. It's a pretty good leading indicator for the beliefs of whoever's using the term.
That's not true at all. Or it is, but not i. The way you think. The vast majority of Sioux tribe members (among others) say "Indian" because they feel that the change to NA is just one more way that white Americans are trying to dictate the conversation regarding that part of history, and in such a way that they can feel better about themselves without actually doing anything.
In other words, the thought process (As I've been told) is: "No, fuck you, you called us Indians for hundreds of years. We learned to accept it and use that term. Now YOU want to star using some other term to make yourself feel better about treating us like shit. No. Tough shit. Too late."
LondonSox said:
A fair number of indigenous people prefer "Indian" to "Native American." Both have their issues.
In addition to Dr. Leather's excellent point, a lot of indigenous peoples don't consider themselves "American," and they resent being turned into another hyphenated-American group.
I used to work at an Indian casino in Michigan and spent a good deal of time in parts of Canada where the Cree and other tribes still have a significant population. The native people I knew or spoke to called themselves Indians. I did hear the term First Nation used, mostly in Canada. I don't know that I've ever seen "This is Native American Land" spray-painted on a bridge, but I've seen "This is Indian Land" more than a few times. I'm not saying this is the same everywhere--my experience for what it's worth.
LondonSox said:
What's even more baffling than the fact that a term which was coined completely by mistake (Indian) has managed to stick around for 500 years, is the fact that the term coined in an attempt to rectify that mistake (Native American) is also a mistake. Anyone who was born in America is a Native American, regardless of their ethnicity. Aboriginal American is probably the most linguistically correct term. Amerindian is nice and precise, but its unheard of outside of an academic setting.
Talking about mistakes, the word "America" is almost certainly coined from the latinized version of Amerigo Vespucci's first name, who erroneously received credit for "discovering" land others (Vikings, Columbus) had reached first. So much of history is codified mistakes.
I'm glad to see this. I've always thought it was time to retire the name. You wouldn't use the Detroit N__i__g__g__e__r__s...
Why was my post deleted? It was relevant to the topic and not at all inflammatory (or meant that way, I guess is better to say...)
I doubt you saw his deleted post as it was only there for a few minutes on Monday night but in this thread, of all places, he used Paula Deen's favorite word and then played victim as he said it was not inflammatory.
Possible name change in the works?
CBSSports.com @CBSSports2h
Could the Washington Redskins become the Washington Bravehearts? - http://cbsprt.co/WashingtonBravehearts … (via @EyeOnNFL)
CBSSports.com @CBSSports2h
Could the Washington Redskins become the Washington Bravehearts? - http://cbsprt.co/WashingtonBravehearts … (via @EyeOnNFL)
soxhop411 said:
Supposedly, the Arena League is looking to expand to DC. That seems like a more likely explanation for registering the new name.
I can't possibly imagine why Snyder would have a problem with Gibson except maybe for the really big reason.
dbn said:
All those years living in Australia, right? Plus, there was that movie where he starred with a beaver puppet ...
The Allented Mr Ripley said:
jeez
Were the Onion’s anti-Semitic slurs “fair game”?
While the Onion has been spot on so many times this year, the satirical news organization has also thrown out some jokes of questionable taste in the past few months. This particular story walked a fine line between promoting stereotypes and making fun of those who promote stereotypes — so much so that journalists still don’t know how to react.....
Dan Snyder basically is a collection of anti-Semitic stereotypes personified. His sniveling attitude and quickness to cry anti-Semetism any time anybody observes that he's an asshole is harmful to both American and World Jewry. (The fact that Abe Foxman is willing to go along with it shows you everything about his values as well.) If someone found evidence that he actually kidnaps and murders Christian babies every spring, it wouldn't really surprise me at this point.
He deserves so much worse than a satiric article pointing out his double standard, and it pisses me off that the Jewish community hasn't heaped so much ridicule on him that he, well, I'm not sure I want to finish this sentence in writing.
He deserves so much worse than a satiric article pointing out his double standard, and it pisses me off that the Jewish community hasn't heaped so much ridicule on him that he, well, I'm not sure I want to finish this sentence in writing.
I found this to be hurtful and in very poor taste. I am not Jewish. But while on the topic of sensitivity, we should not forget that Snyder recently tried to put a local paper out of business by filing a libel suit that included spurious claims of anti-Semitism. What goes around comes around.
Snyder is an ass-hole and a guy who in my opinion has put his financial self-interests ahead of decency and what is right, but as big a selfish jerk as he may be, I'm not sure that should give a publication, even one who trades in satire, a free-pass to use anti-Semitism to make a point.
The article doesn't advocate maltreatment of Jewish people, they just used a racial slur. The point is that if it's offensive and wrong to use that word in the article, then it's offensive and wrong to use it as the name of a football team.
Yeah using racist terminology in public, for any reason is really in bad taste.bankshot1 said:
They really need to not use that redskin word.
- Status